Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 21 Jun 2005 09:03:21 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Because the National Register of Historic Places is a preservation tool
promoted in the public interest, the emphasis is largely on exterior
facades visible to the public and public spaces of the interior (e.g., the
lobby and auditorium of a theater or public areas of a bank building).
Interiors may also be deemed significant if evocative of a particular style
or the product of a master architect (e.g., in a Frank Lloyd Wright
house). In some cases the building would be totally unusable without
radical changes to the interior, for safety if nothing else, and a
builiding without a use will be torn down entirely. Some might recall that
during the Truman administration the White House was totally gutted, saving
only the walls. The present interior is based on the original design, but
it is barely 50 years old. Inserting contemporary interiors inside historic
facades is more radical, of course, but if the structure is on the Register
there is at least the opportunity for public comment on the design.
Ron May
<[log in to unmask] To: [log in to unmask]
> cc: (bcc: Vergil Noble/MWAC/NPS)
Sent by: Subject: How Do You Feel About Gutting an Historic Building?
HISTORICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
<[log in to unmask]
>
06/21/2005 03:07
AM AST
Please respond to
HISTORICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
Fellow HISTARCHers,
This evening I attended a meeting at which an architect and his developer
team proposed the preservation of the exterior facade of a building, then
gutting
the interior, roof, interior walls, ripping the earth below, and creating a
modern building beneath the old skin of the building. How do you feel about
gutting an historic building? Is this consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards?
Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.
|
|
|